On Sunday, May 18, 2014 4:07:20 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Richard Ruquist > <yan...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be<javascript:> >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> On 18 May 2014, at 05:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> >>> Hibbs, >>> I do not often share your opinion, but in this instance I do. It seems >>> to me that Bruno's principal argument for comp is that it predicts MWI. >>> >>> >>> >>> The argument says that comp (believed by 99,9% of scientists today) >>> entails the MWI. OK. >>> >> >> Not OK and not true. >> > > So the majority of scientists don't believe in concept of function or > mechanism (that comp aims to make precise and study the consequences of, > given its step 0 assumptions)? > Isn't this a case of constructively building an association? I don't know if 99% of scientists concur with computationalism or not, but that would be a different question than whether scientists believe in the concept of function and mechanism. In the same way that "do insurers support speculative litigation" would be a different question than "so insurers don't believe in rule of law?" There's a lot of spectrum and a lot of scope for slide rules up and down it. I'd certainly be interested to know data on this if you have any, or should come into possession later ion,
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
